No override of Sharp Park veto

Rachel Gordon, Stephanie M. Lee

Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The Board of Supervisors could not muster enough votes to override Mayor Ed Lee'sveto of legislation that would have compelled the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department to transfer management of Sharp Park to the federal government, if an agreement could be brokered.

The override vote was 6-5 Tuesday, falling two short of the minimum needed to buck the mayor. Supervisor Christina Olague, whom Lee appointed to a vacant seat on the board Monday, voted in favor of the override. Her position mirrors that of Ross Mirkarimi, the supervisor she replaced.

LATEST SFGATE VIDEOS

The parkland property - owned by San Francisco - is on the Pacifica coast and used for a public golf course. The goal of the legislation is to restore the land to its natural habitat for inclusion in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which is under National Park Service jurisdiction.

Environmentalists have been pushing for the change - the land is home to the endangered San Francisco garter snake and the threatened California red-legged frog - and have taken their fight to court.

"The real thrust of this ordinance is to really protect endangered species in the Pacifica area," Avalos said before the vote. He also voiced concern that operation of the golf course is draining Rec and Park funding that could be better used within the city.

Meanwhile, San Francisco park officials are trying to work out a deal to turn management of the land over to San Mateo County, which would retain the golf course. Details are being negotiated and are expected to be shored up by month's end. One of the sticking points: Who would pay for implementation of a plan to reconfigure the greens to protect the most vulnerable habitat and restore some wetlands?

A development plan: The city is poised to absorb the functions and projects of its to-be-dissolved redevelopment agency, including affordable housing, according to a plan announced by Mayor Ed Lee Tuesday.

The plan was presented at the Board of Supervisors meeting, weeks after the California State Supreme Court ruled that the state has the right to abolish redevelopment programs across the state. That decision sent agencies, including San Francisco's, scrambling before they are officially set to disband Feb. 1.

Introducing his resolution Tuesday, Lee urged the supervisors to "approve it before Feb. 1 so we can assure these critical functions continue."

The plan calls for the city to absorb the redevelopment agency's assets and payment obligations. Oversight of affordable housing, for instance, will go to the Mayor's Office of Housing.

The mayor added he is seeking to establish a housing trust fund to "ensure that we will have a local permanent source of funding for affordable housing." Much of that money would ideally come from the private sector, he told The Chronicle in an editorial board meeting Monday.

The Board of Supervisors rejected 10-0 an appeal opposing the project, which calls for expanding the institution by 230,000 square feet. Gallery space would grow from 59,000 to 130,000 square feet.

The appeal came late last year from an attorney representing the W Hotel, which stands adjacent to the museum at 181 Third St. The hotel objects to the analysis of traffic presented in the project's final environmental impact report, which the Planning Commission unanimously certified in November. State law requires the document be completed to begin construction.

In the appeal, the hotel argued that traffic will suffer as a result of "the project's closure of the mid-block area that the W Hotel relies upon for loading/unloading and valet activities." Attorney Christine Griffithalso argued Tuesday that the museum's new designs, unveiled in late November, differed drastically from those analyzed in the environmental impact report.

But the supervisors unanimously sided with city planners and the museum - except newly appointed Supervisor Christina Olague, who recused herself because she had voted on the project as the Planning Commission's former president.

- Stephanie M. Lee

A tight leash: Six? Seven? Eight? Infinity? Just what should the limit be on how many dogs a professional dog walker can walk at any one time in a city park? The answer - drum roll, please - is eight. That's the number the Board of Supervisors settled on Tuesday after much debate.

The limit is just one component of legislation to regulate dog walkers in San Francisco. The proposal, which was given preliminary approval, would require commercial dog walkers who walk four or more dogs on property owned by the city, the port or the Public Utilities Commission to obtain a permit.

Applicants must complete training in such areas as dog park etiquette (think pick up the poop, stay out of playgrounds), canine first aid and pack management or have gone through an apprenticeship program. Permit holders must carry a leash for each dog, follow all applicable leash laws, transport dogs in a safe manner, obtain liability insurance and have plenty of water nearby for the pooches under their charge.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.